Special forces have had reputation of taking out the enemy before the enemy even knows they are there. We don't announce to the world that we are
sending them before they get there. Most of the time they do the mission and get out secretly, that's what they are trained to do!

The title of this thread should be, special forces, doing their job well. Or, special forces, doing what they were trained to do.

These are the guys who risk their lives and don't get credit for it, they don't expect it. The last highly public mission that I remember reading
about was when the SEAL's took out those pirates who were holding an American captain hostage. The only reason we knew about that was because the
story was posted all over the news.

sounds more like your post is a joke, i was laughing anyhow casue guess what bud..

Military and senior administration officials said Special Operations forces have grown in numbers and budget allocations, and now are
deployed in 75 countries, up from about 60 countries at the beginning of 2009

So much for our Nobel Peace Prize winner? Now it is back to running and gunning in the jungle, desert, and mountains. From sea to shinning sea.
Subverting governments, political assassinations, death squads, destruction to infrastructure, and other black op activities. Wow! This type of
behavior by a man who accepted the Nobel Peace Prize? If he had any fiber of self-respect and common reason, he should have respectfully declined the
award given his office as Commander and Chief. By accepting the award and formally admitting to black ops in countries not at war with the US, he is
turning the Nobel Peace Prize into a mockery.

I am not surprised in the least, because just about every politician seems out for self instead of the greater good. This escalation certainly is on
par with Present Bush's covert operations, or vastly surpasses it? We will have to wait and see? Still, this type of behavior is only going to weaken
the image of the US even further. We all know where these type of operations lead to: like democratically leaders being deposed resulting in
destabilization, death squads, corruption, war crimes, acts of torture, and other malicious affairs. I am referring to the CIA led ousting of Iranian
Prime Minister, Mohammed Mossadeqh, Iran/Contra, Operation Phoenix, Air America, and the illegal military activities in both Cambodia and Laos. Each
of the instances listed above where covert ops and led to disastrous consequences when the dust finally settled.

Moreover, it gives the United States government the right to use military personnel and intelligence assets with unwarranted ambiguity in the scope
and responsibility if something goes wrongs. For instance, forces will be sent into harms way with unmarked uniforms and no identification. It was
done before in Vietnam, and I am certain there are instances of stories involving captures and mishaps that remain secret to this day. As it stands,
if something goes wrong, the US government can deny all knowledge or involvement in a military operation that took place in a nation not formally at
war with the US.

Now, I am not naive, and I know covert operations happen all the time. However, the very notion is secret and classified. Why has this information
been released to the world in the first place? Perhaps, there is a big leak at the Department of Defense, or in the Intelligence Community? This
information was probably classified before it was released to the media. Still, I am opposed to this type of behavior, because the perils caused by it
in the past. Its seems to do more harm than good.

What I am saying is that it should be no surprise that the US has SF operating in a large range of countries. That's what they do, it's what they
are trained for.

The US has been involved in two semi-major wars. There are a bunch of people who are not pleased with the US right now. It should be no surprise
that we need covert operations in a massive amount of countries.

Keep in mind, it may be our fault that these people hate us but they do in fact hate us. In my personal life I make mistakes which make people mad,
that does not mean that I am gong to let them take swings at me (I don't really get in fights, that's just the best way to explain things).

In a perfect world we wouldn't need SF, we don't live in perfect world yet. I like to think of SF as a good thing. They are trained to hit their
targets. That minimizes collateral damages.

semi-major is hardly what id call iraq and afghanistan. neither the taliban or the iraqi regulars offered much resistance and simply melted in the
face of the american war machine. insurgencies are just that, they arent wars per say. the last conventional actual war was fought in 08 in south
ossetia and abkhazia.. (georgia/russia) thats what war is..

truth of the matter is that the U.S. has SOC forces with boots on the ground around the globe, and has since the inception of modernized special
operations forces (late 60's into the 70's).

There is, however, a major difference between having operators in-country and actually conducting "black-operations." Many of the countries I assume
are part of this list most likely have operators (which can range from intelligence gathering entities to supply and logistics personel down to combat
forces) do not have active combat operations ongoing. Most of the SOC (special operations capable) forces act as advanced eyes and ears, doing very
little operationally.

Obama has certainly championed the use of special operations forces in much the same way JFK did, and though it may not suffice as a strong enough
argument for many, on my own word and experience, most of these forces deployed internationally do not engage in the classic "black-ops" that so
many people associate with special operations capable units.

People must also account for the large amount of turbulence around the globe. If American citizens in a foreign country, say the Congo as an example,
must be extracted due to one of many factors, SOC forces are the best candidates to pull them out quietly and under the radar.

I am not arguing for or against the continued use of SOC units, however there is a fine line between the silence necessary to achieve the objectives
of a SOC unit and the accountability necessary to run a legitimate and humane government. I can assure you, however, that most, if not all units I
have served with, trained with and otherwise come across have had very respectable and just mission objectives. That is not to say that we don't have
some unaccountable shady operatives running around, but those are generally recruited and operated by the CIA, NSA and DHS (subsequently removing
themselves from any list that would EVER be made public).

Semi-major is just a term I picked. I picked that because they are not the all out conventional type of wars. The differences between how you and I
would describe "semi-major" are irrelevant.

The point is that people are upset with the US. If you would like to argue that they are not then go ahead.

Shark is right. I don't know enough about SF to say what they are doing but from the SF guys I have talked to not all of their missions are
combative. From my understanding SF guys also do training as well as other missions.

It may be less confusing to get your acronyms down. I don't mean to be a stickler, but SF, SOF, SOC, SWP, etc are all different people and units in
military lingo, though some could be classified as more than one of those.

Special operations has become so encompassing that it can practically operate as its own branch of the military, and in some ways does (see SOCOM,
SOC, NSWC). Operators and their supporting personell are incredibly flexible and for the most part, their assignments will be ever changing and
evolving.

Communications, transport, combat, medical and all other manner of MOS' now fall under SOC in many operations. The Army and Air Force have their own
SOC helicopter transport units, various branches maintain SOC communications specialists, you get the point.

The funding and support that SOC programs recieve is incredible, especially when compared to just 30 years ago.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.